[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <278a5212-b962-9a3a-cc86-76cac744afab@c-s.fr>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 11:09:05 +0200
From: Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, mhocko@...nel.org,
aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mpe@...erman.id.au, benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Albert Ou <albert@...ive.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm: remove odd HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL
Le 11/04/2018 à 11:03, Laurent Dufour a écrit :
>
>
> On 11/04/2018 10:58, Christophe LEROY wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 11/04/2018 à 10:03, Laurent Dufour a écrit :
>>> Remove the additional define HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL and rely directly on
>>> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL.
>>>
>>> There is no functional change introduced by this patch
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>> mm/memory.c | 19 ++++++++-----------
>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>>> index 96910c625daa..7f7dc7b2a341 100644
>>> --- a/mm/memory.c
>>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
>>> @@ -817,17 +817,12 @@ static void print_bad_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>> unsigned long addr,
>>> * PFNMAP mappings in order to support COWable mappings.
>>> *
>>> */
>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL
>>> -# define HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL 1
>>> -#else
>>> -# define HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL 0
>>> -#endif
>>> struct page *_vm_normal_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
>>> pte_t pte, bool with_public_device)
>>> {
>>> unsigned long pfn = pte_pfn(pte);
>>> - if (HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL) {
>>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL)) {
>>> if (likely(!pte_special(pte)))
>>> goto check_pfn;
>>> if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->find_special_page)
>>> @@ -862,7 +857,7 @@ struct page *_vm_normal_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>> unsigned long addr,
>>> return NULL;
>>> }
>>> - /* !HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL case follows: */
>>> + /* !CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL case follows: */
>>> if (unlikely(vma->vm_flags & (VM_PFNMAP|VM_MIXEDMAP))) {
>>> if (vma->vm_flags & VM_MIXEDMAP) {
>>> @@ -881,7 +876,8 @@ struct page *_vm_normal_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>> unsigned long addr,
>>> if (is_zero_pfn(pfn))
>>> return NULL;
>>> -check_pfn:
>>> +
>>> +check_pfn: __maybe_unused
>>
>> See below
>>
>>> if (unlikely(pfn > highest_memmap_pfn)) {
>>> print_bad_pte(vma, addr, pte, NULL);
>>> return NULL;
>>> @@ -891,7 +887,7 @@ struct page *_vm_normal_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>> unsigned long addr,
>>> * NOTE! We still have PageReserved() pages in the page tables.
>>> * eg. VDSO mappings can cause them to exist.
>>> */
>>> -out:
>>> +out: __maybe_unused
>>
>> Why do you need that change ?
>>
>> There is no reason for the compiler to complain. It would complain if the goto
>> was within a #ifdef, but all the purpose of using IS_ENABLED() is to allow the
>> compiler to properly handle all possible cases. That's all the force of
>> IS_ENABLED() compared to ifdefs, and that the reason why they are plebicited,
>> ref Linux Codying style for a detailed explanation.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> Should I submit a v4 just to remove these so ugly __maybe_unused ?
>
Most likely, unless the mm maintainer agrees to remove them by himself
when applying your patch ?
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists